In article <p5ct0v$b3i$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
> | > But you also have to remember that you really
> | > shouldn't be trying to do real work on Windows 10.
> | > You're an unpaid beta tester. The system configuration
> | > can be changed at any time, willy nilly, as Microsoft
> | > decides to zap you with their next test version that
> | > corporate customers don't have to put up with.
> |
> | nonsense.
>
> Indeed it is.
yep. it is, just like everything else you post.
> That's the first intelligent use of
> that word I've seen you use, even if you didn't
> mean to. But I'll give you credit, anyway.
as well you should, however, you won't learn anything.
> | > A Windows version or service pack was
> | > created, tested, released to volunteer beta testers
> | > in version after version.... Only after months or
> | > even years of that was the final version released for
> | > IT people to start their own testing. It no longer
> | > works that way.
> |
> | yes it does.
>
> As usual, you don't have the slightest idea what you're
> talking about,
yes i most certainly do know what i'm talking about.
win10 works exactly the same way.
microsoft has been working on the next version of win10 (and the
version *after* that) for quite a while.
windows insiders have been using and testing it for several months. i
don't remember when it was first available but it was around when fcu
came out.
it's expected to be released in a month or two to the first wave of
users, with most users getting it in the weeks and months that follow.
microsoft staggers the release so that any problems are caught early
and affect the fewest number of people. most of it has been ironed out
with insider builds, but as with any software, there are always bugs
that slip through.
it people can defer it if they want.
it people are also not relevant to this discussion since eric, you or
any of the other regulars in this newsgroup are not it people. they are
using their own personal systems and should always be running the most
up to date versions, if for no other reason, security.
> but who cares, right? As long as you stick
> to "nonsense", "bullshit" and "yes it does", it doesn't really
> matter what you're talking about. Unfortunately, there
> are people here who may be misled because they fall
> for your authoritative airs.
unfortunately, you continue to spew about windows 10 even though you
don't actually use it.
> "On average, a release took about three years from inception to completion
> but only about six to nine months of that time was spent developing "new"
> code. The rest of the time was spent in integration, testing, alpha and beta
> periods - each lasting a few months."
>
> That quote is from a former Microsoft manager:
>
> https://blog.usejournal.com/what-really-happened-with-vista-an-insid...
> pective-f713ee77c239?gi=38e71fdf876
you skipped the first sentence in that paragraph, intentionally
misleading readers.
here it is in its *entirety* :
By far the biggest problem with Windows releases, in my humble
opinion, was the length of each release. On average, a release took
about three years from inception to completion but only about six to
nine months of that time was spent developing